No Irã agora: • Sem internet • Sem ligações telefônicas • Nenhuma comunicação com o mundo exterior Ainda assim, a principal emissora estatal do regime islâmico está transmitindo e promovendo Tucker Carlson. Isso foi demais para meu cérebro aguentar.

.@RealCandaceO has repeatedly used the Fort Huachuca story to claim and insinuate that Erika Kirk, Brian Harpole, Rep. Mark Amodei, TPUSA, Cabot Phillips, and the U.S. military were involved in Charlie Kirk’s assassination. In Episode 277, she claimed TPUSA sent Charlie to Asia so he wouldn’t witness this top-secret assassination meeting at Fort Huachuca. She promoted it by saying: "Charlie Kirk was assassinated and our military was involved." "It feels like today will be the day that the government can no longer deny it." "A story from a man in the military that is about to blow this case open." On her show, she went further: "I just cannot see how this would lead to anything other than a full confession from the government about the military's involvement in his assassination." That entire narrative rests solely on the "eyewitness" testimony of a court-documented pathological liar—and was sold as a pre-assassination meeting involving the U.S. military, Charlie’s wife, his head of security, his colleagues, and a sitting member of Congress. Yesterday, when @HarrisonHSmith asked a simple question—why does Fort Huachuca matter, and what is the actual claim?—Candace suddenly shifted. Instead of standing by the accusation, she argued it “matters” because Brian Harpole gave an alibi and “acted weird,” citing vague suspicions, while refusing to say whether it was an assassination meeting at all. "It matters because why would Brian Harpole be at Fort Huachuca at all? It matters because he's giving an alibi which means he doesn't want to be associated... Like I said, Brian Harpole was acting funny. He's been acting weird. He cared enough to present an alibi, meaning he didn't want people to think he was there, right? So if you have to, if you have to give someone an alibi, is because you don't want people to think that you're there. Is an alibi is not needed if there's nothing to hide. So that's why I think that's why it matters." When pressed again on Erika Kirk’s involvement, Candace deflected—saying Erika wasn’t there that day (but was there the day before), insisting it’s not about conclusions, only “following lies” and “not normal reactions,” and admitting she “cannot definitely say” it was an assassination meeting. But Candace herself opened this story by declaring: "Charlie Kirk was assassinated and our military was involved." You don’t get to accuse the U.S. military of murder, name Charlie's loved ones as participants in this top secret assassination planning meeting, hype an imminent government confession—and then retreat into "I’m just asking questions" and "why is he giving an alibi?" This is unhinged, baseless slander followed by gaslighting—built entirely on the "eyewitness" testimony of a child-kidnapping, women-abusing, court-documented pathological liar, whose story Candace incentivized with a $141,000 GiveSendGo campaign.